Does this mean that I, being weak and strong, are one? — ArisTootelEs
Are you saying paradoxes only appear if we use different worlds? Like the ideal vs. the real? — ArisTootelEs
But a group isn't literally united. Its a sort of poetic expression. Unless you believe in some metaphysical connection that actually somehow forms a single unit out of many. That could be possible, as weird as it sounds, since we are made up of distinct parts that together form a unity. — Yohan
"One" is a concept, so in the fields of metaphysics, it can be:
(1) Weakness;
(2) Strength;
(3) Weakness and Strength.
Only after "becoming" through the human conception unto the world that it decides what the option will be.
Existence is "limitation".
Your paradox arises from the fact that you are applying the metaphysical perception to something that, in practice, can only be "One". — Gus Lamarch
One individual is insecure, vulnerable, weak. A population of individuals pursuing one goal is more secular, less vulnerable, strong. Like almost all of your paradoxs, Fool, the premises draw false comparisons between apples and oranges (i.e. often category mistakes e.g. individuals & group-concepts). Again, no paradox. :roll: — 180 Proof
An old man has a number of sons who constantly quarrel with each other. As he nears death he calls them to him and gives them an object lesson in the need for unity. Having bound a bundle of sticks together (or in other accounts either spears or arrows), he asks his sons to break them. When they fail, he undoes the bundle and either breaks each stick singly [ONE] or gets his sons to do so. In the same way, he teaches them, though each can be overcome alone, they are invincible combined [ONE] — Wikipedia
A single person could dispatch a whole batallion of soldiers one by one (one is weakness ) but not if fae has to deal with the entire batallion all at once (one is strength). — TheMadFool
Sometimes, this lone wolf attitude arose because of some past trauma. They may have had partners, sidekicks, love interests, or other teammates die on them and wound up thinking that working alone won't get anybody else killed. — TV Tropes
split along particular roles based on complementary skills and personality traits that contribute to group dynamics in their own unique way. — TV Tropes
I don't know about the one per se, but your OP reminded me of Schopenhauer's porcupines:
"One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another..." — Manuel
One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another... — Manuel
It all seems to boil down to minimizing annoyances and grievances that will definitely arise whether more on the lonely camp or the social camp — Manuel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.